H.R. 3057: To the Asteroids, Moon and Mars 668
apsmith writes "Democrats have just introduced the Space Exploration Act of 2003 to the U.S. House of Representatives; the author is Nick Lampson of Texas, with 26 co-sponsors. The bill sets a vision and goals for the future of NASA, beyond the Low Earth Orbit of the Space Station and Shuttle, outlining a series of incremental steps for human spaceflight. These include development of reusable spacecraft for carrying people around in the Earth-Moon vicinity, including to the nearby Lagrange points; sending people to an Earth-crossing asteroid; establishing a lunar base, and sending people to Mars with a base on a Martian moon by 2024."
Got a volunteer for ya' (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Got a volunteer for ya' (Score:3, Informative)
To the moon, Alice! (Score:4, Funny)
couldn't help myself. =]
--
a.b. murray
Re:To the moon, Alice! (Score:3, Funny)
Fry: That's not an astronaut, it's a TV comedian. And he was just using space travel as a metaphor for beating his wife.
Disclosure (Score:5, Informative)
Rep. Lampson's congressional district includes Johnson Space Center [nasa.gov], which would benefit greatly from an expansion of manned spaceflight.
re:deficit (Score:4, Insightful)
The deficit is already 455 billion. At the current rate, this deficit will probably reach 8-900 billion even with a relatively decent recovery of the economy.
10-15 years later when the deficit is so big that it hangs like Damocles sword over Capitol hill, NASA's budget will be put on the chopping block.
Re:deficit (Score:4, Insightful)
This is not to say that there's nothing to worry about; for all the conservative fulmination of President Bush, domestically he's turned out to be as free-spending as Clinton or any other Democrat. Apparently, "the era of Big Government is over" is over.
Having said that, if NASA's budget cut it would have to be politics over science (super-collider, anyone?). It constitutes such a small percentage of the federal budget that cutting it would achieve nothing. I'm a libertarian, but when it comes to the space program, I've always said that if my tax dollars are going to be forcibly extracted from me, at least a few of them are going towards advancing man into space.
Re:deficit (Score:4, Insightful)
I would argue far more so. I think the Clinton administration busted the myth of the 'tax and spend liberal Democrat' pretty well, what with the restraint shown in the growth of government spending, and the ultimate surplus that was used to start paying down the debt.
And I think Bush is busting the myth of the 'fiscally responsible Republican' pretty well. He has squandered the surplus and driven us to the largest deficits in history in just two years, and the government -- in size and power -- has grown enormously in that time. It's all borrow and spend, borrow and spend, while his corporate buddies are stuffing fistfuls of money into their pockets, while the average American gets laid off, has their property taxes jacked up to cover local and state short-falls, and is basically getting bupkiss back from the cuts.
Over the next ten years, the deficits the Bush Administration are racking up will come to over $33,000 for each and every tax-payer. That's scary.
Re:deficit (Score:3, Insightful)
If we were to develop a good replacement for the shuttle that did wonders for launch costs ($100/lb or so), even if the craft is owned by Boeing or LockMart, you can bet that people are going to be lined up to use that instead of Ariane, Soyuz, or Proton rockets. This would result in a lot of folks employed in America in support of this, because you know that they'll find reasons to turn down any other suggestions
Re:Disclosure (Score:3, Insightful)
View A: Rep. Lampson is looking out for the economic interests of his district, in part by supporting the manned space program, which employs thousands in that district.
View B: Rep. Lampson represents the views of thousands in his district who believe in the manned space program, who were inspired by it when choosing their fields of study, and who have dedicated thei
Re:Disclosure (Score:4, Insightful)
The Bill is Worthless... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a nice vision, but without adequate funding it is only so much posturing from congress, and frankly, I'm quite sick of windbags who have no intention of following through on their flowery rhetoric with concrete action.
Re:The Bill is Worthless... (Score:2)
Soko
Re:The Bill is Worthless... (Score:5, Insightful)
The bill addresses the first two years funding. Though I fail to see it as adequate. I say if we can spend 87 billion dollars to force our democratic ideas on another country militarily, then we should be able to get a billion or so a year for space exploration.
Re:The Bill is Worthless... (Score:3, Interesting)
Then if we find anything there, we can spend another 87 billion dollars to force our democratic ideas on it.
Your forgot to list ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Americorps
No Child Left Behind
AIDS help for Africa
Homeland Security
Rebuilding Afghanistan
Halliburton
Oh, wait. He made sure to properly fund that last one.
A Republican led Congress ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Bill is Worthless... (Score:3, Informative)
(1) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
and
(2) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.
Re:The Bill is Worthless... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The Bill is Worthless... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd rather have a bill that reads: "NASA, you have to make sure we setup a base on the moon, go to mars and setup a refueling station at the Larange point between the Moon and the Earth", instead of one that mandates NASA to do those things by themselves.
This would be similar to the farmaceutical industry, where the government gives huge grants for pure research to private companies that eventually develop good products for illnesses that wouldn't make economical sense to do
Now the important question... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Now the important question... (Score:5, Interesting)
If the cosigners are all Democrats, then one of two things will happen. B), the bill is scuttled by the current congress as "more pork barrel legislation on idealistic goals, when we instead need to deal with the real world and real issues." Or, C), the bill is modified to specify that only Haliburton can receive any of the funds, all Democrats end up voting against their own bill, and congress points out how Demos "vote against pushing the boundaries of science, technology, and human achievement that made this country great."
Option D) is that the bill is entirely Democrat backed, but it is embraced by Republicans and passes overwhelmingly. Personally, I'm not optimistic.
---------
The above post is to be considered Funny +1 and/or Interesting +1.
Re:Now the important question... (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, $50 million and $200 million are not a big slice of even NASA's current budget so they will be easy to slap on today. They won't accomplish much with that money, however, aside from some initial planning and research. To really do what is proposed will add much more, at least an average of $2 billion per year more according to most estimates [nasa.gov] of what it will take to get to Mars.
Hopefully some new technologies like nuclear electric propulsion [spacedaily.com] will turn out to be fit for this sort of purpose to cut the travel time to Mars down to a reasonable level so we can survive the largest problem with such a mission, radiation [nasa.gov]. Since Bush likes nuclear technology, this one might even fly [futurepundit.com].
Terrorists on the Moon (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Terrorists on the Moon (Score:5, Insightful)
Very Dangerous Legislation (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Very Dangerous Legislation (Score:4, Funny)
yeah, you almost found the point (Score:3, Offtopic)
Re:Very Dangerous Legislation (Score:3, Interesting)
NASA has shown that they can't really get anything done quickly and cheaply. It's not going to get us much more advances if they are all put aside once the goals are reached. It's also not going to help unless you define what "reusable" means. Apollo capsules could be called reusable if you stretch things.
The problem is that NASA needs to be mostly out of the loop. NASA has interfered and bungled stuff up more than once. It is increasingly appearing (At least to me) that the best way to do thing
Re:Very Dangerous Legislation (Score:4, Insightful)
NASA is mostly about maintaining their bunch of people and astronauts. Most of their projects are currently things that nobody else has the money to throw at. Most of the waste of late is companies like Boeing and LockMart, where they all go overbudget, because it's more profitable that way.
Really, the large problem right now is that nobody *can* compete with NASA because it's too expensive. National Geographic would love to send a photographer to the Moon, but there's no way that they'd be able to pay for it on their own. I'm of the belief that they really need to find some way of having reasonable launch costs (i.e. a reasonable multiple of fuel costs, not some multi-million dollar craft) and most of the rest of it will take care of itself.
The military has found that, for a high performance aircraft, you do need to build 2 different prototypes. There's only one military, but there's 2 contractors and 2 prototypes.
I'm also following Ben Rich (Second boss of the famed Skunk works) in thinking that it's also best for a program to take a mere few years. This way, nobody tries to build a career out of middle managing it.
Re:A Super X Prize (Score:3, Interesting)
If they make the program a few years instead of 10 years, it's more assured funding and less propensity towards useless middle management. Plus, it's much easier to cancel a 10 year project 3 years in instead of canceling a project that's 3 years into a 4 year project.
If you have competing bids up to the point of prototypes, which the military does, you get 2x the basic developments for 1.25x the cost. If you have a clear set
I'm very pleased by this announcement (Score:3, Informative)
Wow, an actual plan? (Score:5, Interesting)
I know many of us tend to be skeptical about mission statements. However, it seems like a good idea because unlike a business (universal business mission statement: "Make Lots Of Money"), it isn't that obvious what NASA is trying to do, or should try to do. And I think it should be more specific than "explore space, and earth from space."
Social Security (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. We'll be funding all this manned space exploration then. No problem.
phobos base? (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds good to me, just don't do any transdimensional experiments up there.
wtf? a Mars moon base? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:wtf? a Mars moon base? (Score:5, Informative)
(pasted from the link above)
The Lunar rocks may also be examined according to the chemicals that they contain. Such analysis indicates:
They are rich in refractory elements, which are elements such as calcium (Ca), Aluminum (Al), and Titanium (Ti) that form compounds having high melting points.
They are poor in the light elements such as hydrogen (H).
There is high abundance of elements like Silicon (Si) and Oxygen (O).
The high concentration of rare metals like Titanium, and the availability of abundant amounts of Silicon and Oxygen has led to serious proposals about mining and manufacturing operations in the future for the Moon.
Chinese Threat Spurs Americans to Explore Space (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Chinese Threat Spurs Americans to Explore Space (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Chinese Threat Spurs Americans to Explore Space (Score:3, Insightful)
If the former, by all means send space probes all over the solar system.
If the latter, don't waste money trying to get to mars - just build a better satelite evasive maneuvering system, cheap replacement recon sats, and anti-satellite systems of our own.
When solving problems, it helps to first define the problem you want to solve. If the goal is simply to get to space, you don't need wings on the craft. If the goal is to contribute to
Mars? Get real. (Score:2, Insightful)
It won't be you, so it might as well be a machine. Machines can send back immersive multimedia, so it can be as if we all went up there. Machines can survive better, even if the spacecraft takes some damage or gets bathed in radiation. Machines can do more work more consist
Re:Mars? Get real. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Mars? Get real. (Score:3, Interesting)
Human biengs are not pratical, they only get in the way. It prevents rather than promotes any task. There is something known as the dignity of man (or people for the pc), the dignity to be valued as being something more than a machine.
"There are certain things men must do to remain men." (The Ultimate Computer - ST:TOS)
"I said they were more effecient, not perferable. Computers make excel
Re:Mars? Get real. (Score:3, Insightful)
You're absolutely right. Instead of going on vacation this year, just sit at your desk and watch this videotape of the beach. When you're done, you can read this book about scuba diving. It's even better than being there!
Damn straight it'll cost a lot. So what? So does eve
Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
I work at JPL... (Score:4, Insightful)
Habitation on the moon in 15 years? Mars in 20?
Maybe if we devoted the sum output of the entire GDP to doing so! As of now, there's no hope of that happening. We need an infrastructure in orbit around Earth before we can start sending things to the moon. Larger space stations, orbital manufacturing, and perhaps craft designed solely for use in space, to ship people and material to the moon.
That costs money. More money than anyone involved is willing to spend, I bet, especially for the timetable they're legislating.
My bet is that this bunch of politicians has no idea what they're talking about, has discussed the feasability of this with no one, and is looking for some attention from the press in light of the Indian and Chinese space programs.
skye
Re:I work at JPL... (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, you and all your buddies at JPL should be fired.
I've worked with several people from JPL and have yet to meet one who actually has much of half a brain in his head. JPL used to known for employing the brightest and best of the scientific and engineering comminities. Now all that the folks at JPL seem to be interested in doing is touting the fact that, "I work at JPL".
Wooptie friggin' doo.
You've had decades since Apollo to actually make some serious accomplishments and you
Re:I work at JPL... (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of my coworkers work for ridiculously low pay, do much of their work off the clock, and still love what they're doing. You want serious accomplishments? Maybe you shouldn't be touting Apollo, the biggest masturbathon in space history. We blew our moon wad on a one shot mission, that set up no platform to do further missions from, that brought back very negligible data, and nothing that couldn't be done by machines. Immediately afterwards, we threw it all away! So much for space as a location to expand into, when we all we've done is throw rocks into it.
You try setting up a moon colony in 15 years with $200 million, develop all those new technologies, safety test everything, and somehow keep your engineers hired on substandard wages. I bet you can't even begin to budget for it.
skye
Re:I work at JPL... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you were old enough to remember 1940-1960 you would imagine that 2004 would look pretty different than it does today. Innovation was happening every hour back then. Companies were not driven by the all mighty dollar. It was driven by "Brand Identity". They would spend millions on something that would be a "loss leader", it would not make back all the money they put into it, but they figured they would get the return on other products. That doesn't happen any more. Every product today is analized by the return on the dividends for the stock holder and what the company needs to do as a whole to keep the CEO in power.
The rate we were going was amazing if you look back historically. These days we're getting "FASTER" processors, but who the hell cares, the GUI's just keep slowing it back down. But to go from a world with no CPU to a world with a CPU is amazing.
I wish we could continue with innovation driven by top engineers like it was in the 60s, not CEOs or budgets.
I work at McDonalds... (Score:5, Informative)
They then do a many month investigation of the area surrounding the landing site, find life, invent martian versions geology, climatology, etc., and return home.
His estimated cost: somewhere around $10B, $20B and up for variations.
Repeat, repeat, repeat: settlement.
That was 10 years ago, and that's all off the top of my head.
You need the full GDP of the $US ($10T, or 1/5th of the money in the entire world) to do the same? I hope this isn't how the whole of JPL thinks, but if it is, perhaps that's why our space program is stagnant.
Now tell me what's wrong and ludicrous with his ideas (if you care to investigate them) and I'll find someone who can help you understand them.
If it turns out you're right, write a letter to these poor, misguided chumps in Congress.
Otherwise submit a proposal for their funding.
Or, get out of JPL and join me at McDonalds.
Re:I work at McDonalds... (Score:3, Insightful)
Zubrin recommended for funding that NASA (or the government in general) put up a $20 bil
Now I know why you're " leaving" JPL (Score:3)
Re:I work at JPL... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I work at JPL... (Score:4, Funny)
Get thing, want send thing to space.
Thing heavy, need fuel and vehicle. Mainly fuel.
Oh no. Vehicle and fuel expensive. Total energy cost to move mass won't listen to my personal bullshit.
Blame on lazy bastards at NASA. Where perpetual motion machine I ask for?
Grunt. Snort. Fart. Belch.
Finally! (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe they can reallocate some money from ongoing projects such as propping up totalitarian regimes to a space colonization project. That would be nice.
Glad to see a challange (Score:4, Funny)
Vision matters (Score:5, Insightful)
It's only when people have visions of things bigger than themselves and their immediate needs that great things happen. The visionaries provide the drive, while the pragmatists make it happen. As cynical as many of you are about Congress and its motivations, having a compelling vision for exploration and research is welcome. I'd rather have excitement and drive than ennui and cynicism.
Out of curiosity (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Out of curiosity (Score:4, Insightful)
So I for one say, "Go China!", even living in the USA, becuase that may be the only way we can finally start our steps towards getting off this rock.
As for popular opinion? I'd say China landing on the moon would piss a lot of people here off. Nobody owns the moon, but I think if you asked a random sampling of people in the US, you'd find that most of them consider it in a way "our territory" simply because we're the only ones who've landed actual people there. Especially if you phrased it like "would you consider China putting a manned base on the moon to be an aggressive act towards the United States?"
Thats why I think leaps and bounds by other nations in manned space exploration might lead the US to crank manned space exploration back up, perhaps even putting a base on the moon.
In my opinion, the ISS should be nothing more than a gas station anyway - send fuel up there on unmanned rockets, and fill up ships there and head out somewhere interesting. So maybe I'm biased and people really don't care about whether other countries go into space without us. But I'm still hoping they do.
Aren't we missing a goal? (Score:5, Insightful)
But you know, it's not like we've got a whole city of astronauts in Earth orbit waiting to go places yet. At the moment if we actually wanted passengers on any of those manned vehicles, we'd need to send them up on the space shuttle for around $100M a person. That's just not going to cut it.
Rather than having NASA aim at a half dozen targets and design a half dozen vehicles we could barely use, I'd like to see them (and private contractors) designing a half dozen vehicles for just one target: getting people to orbit and back cheaply. Let one company prototype a lifting body and let another one stick reusable capsules on top of "big dumb boosters"; let one laboratory try to make the DC-X scale up to orbit, and let another try a VTHL with a flyback booster. And this time, instead of picking the X-33 proposal with the most neat-sounding untested technology, let's let every serious proposal be funded to the prototype stage; that way we can also make it clear this time that the response to "It's not working yet, can we have more money sooner?" will be "No, but we can give those excess funds to those of your competitors who could put something in the air."
You want cost efficient space exploration? (Score:5, Insightful)
allow more corporate partnership and sponsorship. share patents with cooperating corporations with shorter timelimits (say 5-10 years, no extensions). there'd be plenty of financial incentive, and a net gain for the public domain.
yes, nasa science is currently all patented and free to everyone - but there just isn't anything new coming through the pipe these days. what has nasa given the public domain in the last 10 years? more than 0 stuff 5-10 years down the line is a huge improvement.
don't we all feel the burning -need- to get off this rock? to ensure that civilization will survive the next giant asteroid? to get off this rock and swing on a star?
why did it take 30 years from the moon landing until the ISS -started-? why did we waste so much time and money (and lives) on the shuttle program? why was congress -lied- to about the goals of the shuttle program and the low-earth-orbit focus?
why do we continue to trust the beauracracy who have admitted to lies, collusion and deliberate mistruths in their plundering and misguiding of the space initiative over the last 4 decades?
doesn't it bother us all that our most primal function (exploring,adapting,surviving) has been hoodwinked into jogging in place for nearly half a century? that we haven't been back to the moon a single time?
and don't start that the moon is pointless, or mars is pointless.
of course it is.
but if you never aim for the stars - you'll never get off the ground. we picked the moon as our focus in the space race - a completely pointless exercise - but look at the technology that came of it. imagine what we'd learn on our way to mars-capability. imagine what we'd learn by actually -trying- to build an outpost on a rock with no atmosphere and low gravity.
our future is up there, i say we go get it.
Re:You want cost efficient space exploration? (Score:3, Funny)
In addition, during this file transfer,
Re:You want cost efficient space exploration? (Score:3, Informative)
space based asteroid mining has clear economic advanatages (rare minerals, densely packed, re-entry is essentially effortless - just wrap up and give gentle push 'down')
and those are undeniable, well known, well studied advantages.
what happens when we discover what is really on the moon or mars? formerly considered rare minerals, alien
Re:You want cost efficient space exploration? (Score:3, Insightful)
"food shortages", weather satellites haven't helped farmers one bit!
"communications"-- yeah, NASA never helped with satellites.
"computers"-- if only NASA had helped develop the idea of miniaturized low-power electronics
"entertainment"-- CCD cameras and digital film, anyone?
"health care"-- microsurvery and internal imaging received much from Apollo.
I'll admit the asbestos in 'housing' wasn't made by NASA, so that category might go your way, but I'd say we've reaped a lot. Proble
Re:You want cost efficient space exploration? (Score:3, Insightful)
America, arguably the pinnacle of human-created social and political locales, came to fruition due to both its new frontier and dedication to improving science. Lunaria may found the next best representative democracy - or perfect a free market unbound by the problems of seperation of wealth here on e
Pretty cheap too... (Score:5, Interesting)
(1) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
(2) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2005."
Heck, M$ could pay for the bill. Why not get some sponsorship? Good PR for the company, a mission that wouldn't have been for NASA. Just as long as the given company didn't try to patent any organism it may/may not find on Mars.
As for the bill itself, all I can do is appluad. Finally, some ppl in washington with vision. We fucked this planet up to the point where it is going to take 1000's of years to fix it (if ever). The current attitude that is mostly 'let's fix earth's problems first' simply isn't realistic anymore. In addition, we have wasted enough time in low-earth orbit. Let's really start exploring space now. The space program has been asleep since the end of apollo, the sleeper must awaken. Plus, if an asteroid pulverizes earth, at least any colonies on mars we can set up mmight survive. The time for the future has come!
"...a person needs new experiences, it touches something deep inside us allowing us to grow. Without change something sleeps inside us and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken!"
---Dune (The Movie)
Wow, not bad! (Score:4, Informative)
"(7) There have been numerous commissions and study panels over the last 30 years
(8) While there are significant technical and programmatic hurdles
(11) While the ultimate goal of human space flight in the inner solar system is the exploration of the planet Mars, there are other important goals for exploration of the inner solar system that will advance our scientific understanding and allow the United States to develop and demonstrate capabilities that will be needed for the scientific exploration and eventual settlement of Mars."
w00t! I claim Tharsis Tholus!
"(20) Completion of the International Space Station with a full crew complement of 7 astronauts and robust research capabilities is essential if the United States is to carry out successfully a comprehensive initiative of scientific exploration of the solar system that involves human space flight."
Not so hot on this one.. again, Zubrin's proposals are passed over. Ah comprimise.
If you're not familiar with Zubrin, he made a plan 10 years ago to get to Mars with existing technology (Saturn VII), that would allow scientists months of surface time there, all for $10B:
http://www.nw.net/mars/docs/nearterm.txt
"(4) Within 20 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the development and flight demonstration of a reusable space vehicle capable of carrying humans from low Earth orbit to and from Martian orbit, the development and deployment of a human-tended habitation and research facility on the surface of one of the moons of Mars, and the development and flight demonstration of a reusable space vehicle capable of carrying humans from Martian orbit to the surface of Mars and back."
Again, given Zubrin's work (that he presented to Congress), this is a bummer. We'll spend a lot of time building huge spaceships, instead of getting to Mars and settling it. A lot can happen in 20 years though.. perhaps any legislation like this is good. It's especially understandable given the recent shuttle disaster.. law-makers don't stick their necks out too far.
"(1) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
(2) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2005."
Now that's what I'm talkin' about.
Re:Wow, not bad! (Score:3, Informative)
on manned space missions (Score:3, Interesting)
But what is the use in 2003 to start planning a mission to put men on Mars? Such a mission would cost billions of dollars, money that could much better be used for more interesting things, such as:
- Is there life on Venus? Although surface temperature at Venus seems to hot for live, there might well be cooler spots where bacterial life may exist. Bacteries are found alive and multiplying on earth at temperatures of 120 degrees celsius under high pressures. Who knows, there are live forms possible at higher temperatures and more, what we would call, extreme circumstances, than we so far imagined to be possible.
- More missions to moons of Jupiter and Saturn. There are hints that liquid water exists at some of the moons. Let's try to land on a few of them.
- A bigger space telescope. Yes, I know, another space telescope is already being build. But why not make it a little bit better, bigger, more advanced, more versatile?
- More budget for research on rocket ion-engines or other ways to propel a spacecraft. The speeds that we can reach with current technologies are not very impressive.
All this and more can be done for the costs of a manned Mars mission. In the name of science, lets forget about manned space flight for a while.
why space exploration == NASA budget? (Score:5, Interesting)
Is not it what a well-behaived capitalist government supposed to do? Promote good things, guard against the bad things but generally stay away?
Giving more money to large government agency that was flying shuttles mostly "because there were there" would not get us any further.
Congress needs to come up with a major incensive for businesses to go to space. Like a super Xprize. (or tax-free lifetime for any corp or individual participating in a Mars shot
Okay (Score:3, Funny)
Note the Congressional Districts (Score:5, Interesting)
The Future (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, deterrance is over.
Let me illustrate: What happens if the crazy (bold? daring?) chinese start creating space colonies? What happens when they get, say, 500 million people in space and move their center of power there?
In that scenario, what's it to them if they nuke Taiwan? or the US for that matter?
What would have happend if Stalin, Franco, Hitler, Castro, Napoleon or even Mr. Churchill had gotten the bomb first?
It will probably take another Einstein signed letter to FDR to get the US to "do what it takes" again. And a completely different political reality.
Economics have nothing to do with it.
Operation or Research (Score:3, Interesting)
Keep in mind that NASA was not putting men in space as they developed the shuttle. The last Apollo astronaut launched in 1972 and the first shuttle launch occured in 1981. Are we willing to put another hold on human space flight for 9 years to develop new vehicles and technologies? What about the ISS?
Currently it takes most of NASA's budget to operate the shuttle. Ending the shuttle program would free lots of engineers, scientist, and dollars to develop the next generation of vehicles.
Re:Hmmm- (Score:5, Insightful)
You are aware, Congress, that you can't legislate the advace of technology right?
Sure you can. When President Kennedy was sworn into office in 1961, he set a goal for the end of the decade that we would "send a man to the moon and bring him safely back to Earth."
Re:Hmmm- (Score:4, Interesting)
A lot of the innovation and technology that made it possible to send people to the moon can be traced back before Kennedy. For example the breaktroughs in within rocket science came from scientists that we hired from Germany. They helped us develop the first stages of our rocket program.
So legislating advamcement in technolgy is hard because of the timespan. Luckily our great nation has lately acquired a lot of high tech rocket technology from Iraq. Rumors about their infamous program where true. Their advanced weapon programs contained powerful rockets capable of shuttling us to Mars and back.
Re:Hmmm- (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course all this was motivated by the cold war ultimiatley.
We may have gone to the moon eventually however we have never been back since the orignal missions as there has never been a push like that in the past. I would love to see the goverment put some goals on NASA and give them the funding to match.
Re:Hmmm- (Score:5, Informative)
Rumors about their infamous program where true. Their advanced weapon programs contained powerful rockets capable of shuttling us to Mars and back.
Nope, not true. We've had rockets powerful enough to take us to Mars for years. We've just not had powerful enough rockets to take us, and all the oxygen we need to breathe while there, and burn to blast off and get back. If you run the numbers you'll see why, and then see that even super-duper-Iranian rockets aren't going to make up the difference.
The scientists are going to be able to make it to Mars though, and it's not because of a rocket break-through - it's because a few people were thinking outside of the box and figured out a better solution.
Re:Hmmm- (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hmmm- (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, of course not, since any advanced technology is the end-product of millenia of baby steps in that direction. For instance, we could have never gotten to the Moon without the mathemetical development of orbital mechanics, by Keppler, etc.
We could never have built anything capable of surviving the stresses of acceleration and reentry without technologies ultimately based upon the ancient techniques of metall
Re:1960s Comp Tech (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Hmmm- (Score:3, Funny)
Sure you can. When President Kennedy was sworn into office in 1961,
Of course, last I checked, President != Congress.
Re:Hmmm- (Score:5, Interesting)
You mean like Digital TV by 2006?
Re:Hmmm- (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, silly President Kennedy; what was he thinking? He should've waited until the technology to get to the moon spontaneously became available, and only then requested funding from Congress for the actual mission.
Re:Hmmm- (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm- (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what sucks the most in my opinion. We won't explore to explore, we'll just throw money at it to 'preserve our way of life' or something like that.
Re:Hmmm- (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm- (Score:2)
"We will go to the moon".
The technology for all of the things they're proposing isn't impossible, it just hasn't been done yet. Their timeline might be a bit hard to follow, but I think setting a clear goal for NASA is a good thing.
Re:Hmmm- (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm- (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm- (Score:5, Insightful)
"I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth."
-- Pres. Kennedy, May 25, 1961
You certainly can't legislate innovation, but you definitely give it a helping hand by:
a) encouraging it, and
b) funding it
Re:Hmmm- (Score:3, Insightful)
If NASA made it known that they would ship insane amounts of payload to space at $100/lb if somebody could do it, you could bet that even Boeing or LockMart would put asside their current cash-cow boosters to make a launch vehicle to do just that.
A better Kennedy quote (Score:4, Informative)
We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.
Re:Hmmm- (Score:3, Interesting)
It wasn't Congress, but I seem to recall a President in recent history who declared that we'd put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. The fact that we hadn't yet invented the Lunar Lander didn't do much to dissuade him. It would be disingenuous to suggest that many of the technological leaps made in the years that followed would have come about without the chief executive's impetus driving them.
True, Congress can'
Re:The internet? (Score:3, Funny)
Then how did Sen. Al Gore invent the internet?
By pissing on a transformer.
Re:Privatize the Space Program (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:interesting, but some wasteful ideas (Score:4, Informative)
There is a high likelyhood that within the next 50 years we will detect an asteriod on it's way towards our planet for impact. Once detected, the only way to know how to best deal with it is to go TO it and determine exactly what type of asteroid it is. If it is a solid iron-nickle then we can actually bring the tools along with the survey crew to move it. If it turns out to be porous, there are other methods that can be used. The point is that we will need to determine this, and the most reliable piece of diagnostic equipment you can put in space is still a human. I would sleep a lot better at night knowing that we at least have the capability to intercept one of these beasts before it nukes us. This bit of exploration also becomes a part of survival. I love dual-use designs.
Moon resources (Score:3, Funny)
Okay, as long as I get me some Moon Cheese, and some yummy Moon Pies, I'm okay with the whole thing.
Re:On a sense of proportion (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, thank you for pointing out that my model is nonsense. There's a very nice explanation with diagram [demon.co.uk] that I should have dug up before spouting.
It still looks like the nearest Earth/Sol point ought to be several million miles away, but then I've already proven that I don't know beans about orbital mechanics....